Talk:Development policy/Draft 2019
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by Tgr (WMF) in topic RFC 2119
| This page used the Structured Discussions extension to give structured discussions. It has since been converted to wikitext, so the content and history here are only an approximation of what was actually displayed at the time these comments were made. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IMO the RFC nomenclature doesn't add much here, other than an extra layer of geekiness and inaccessibility to the average developer. Tgr (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks disproportional right now. I considered leaving it out and don't mind removing it again.
- I added it because I expect the document to grow over the coming months as we incorporate the various amendments and expansions that are in the pipeline (there's old policy pages and sections referenced from the current page and at T190379, and new proposals on the TechCom-RFC workboard). Adding it now means we won't need to worry about it later, during an unrelated amendment.
- I agree that, relatively speaking, the reading difficulty would be higher with this blurb than without. I'm all for making things simpler where possible. Do you think we should avoid this in general? Krinkle (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of it in general. I'd maybe put it in a footnote and lowercase must etc. everywhere in the document; that way the meaning is still clear but readers are not distracted by the rfc link which basically just lays out common-sense interpretations of words in extreme length. Most people will interpret them correctly even without any familiarity with RFC 2119. Tgr (WMF) (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.